EPIC Alert 19.17

=======================================================================
E P I C A l e r t
=======================================================================
Volume 19.17 September 14, 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epic.org/alert/epic_alert_19.17.html
"Defend Privacy. Support EPIC."
http://epic.org/donate
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================
[1] EPIC Urges Court to Require Body Scanner Rulemaking
[2] Pew Survey: Most Mobile Users Avoid Apps on Privacy Grounds
[3] EPIC Supreme Court Brief: Investigative Techniques Not 'Infallible'
[4] US Consumer Groups Endorse Proposed European Privacy Law
[5] 2012 Election Platforms Address Privacy Rights
[6] News in Brief
[7] EPIC in the News
[8] Book Review: 'Power and Constraint'
[9] Upcoming Conferences and Events
TAKE ACTION: Join the Coalition to Oppose RFID Tracking in Schools!
READ the Position Paper: http://epic.org/redirect/083012-spychips.html
LEARN about RFID Tracking: http://epic.org/privacy/rfid/
SUPPORT EPIC: http://epic.org/donate
========================================================================
[1] EPIC Urges Court to Require Body Scanner Rulemaking
========================================================================
EPIC has filed a response in the case to force the TSA to initiate a
public rulemaking on airport body scanners. EPIC had originally filed
suit in July 2010 to suspend the body scanner program. In July 2011,
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the TSA should have
initiated a public rulemaking before deploying body scanners as a
primary screening method, and ordered the agency to begin that process
"promptly." More than a year has passed since that court order.
Citing the agency's extraordinary delay in seeking public comment on
the controversial program, EPIC recently urged the court to require the
TSA begin the comment process in 60 days or suspend the program
entirely. In a petition for Writ of Mandamus, EPIC argued that the
TSA's delay "poses risks to traveler safety," "defies the APA statutory
deadlines and prevents judicial review," and is unlawful.
In July, a coalition of 10 organizations, led by the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, filed a "friend of the court" brief in support
of EPIC. Without a court decision, the brief maintains, "the TSA will
be able to continue to evade judicial review, leaving the public with
no meaningful recourse." The DC Circuit Court subsequently ordered the
TSA to respond to EPIC's mandamus petition.
In the TSA's initial response to EPIC's petition, the agency claimed
that the earliest possible date it could "finalize documents" before
beginning the public comment process would be "the end of February
2013." EPIC's reply pointed out the illegality of the agency's delay
and rebutted the agency's excuses.
EPIC: Reply Brief in Support of Petition for Mandamus (Sept. 10, 2012)
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-Mandamus-Reply.pdf
DC Circuit Court: Order to TSA to Conduct Rulemaking (Aug. 1, 2012)
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/EPIC-v-DHS-Order-8-1-12.pdf
EPIC: Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Jul. 17, 2012)
http://epic.org/redirect/081512-mandamus.html
Coalition in Support of EPIC: Brief on Petition (Jul. 19, 2012)
http://epic.org/redirect/081512-coalition-mandamus-support.html
DHS: Opposition to Petition for Mandamus (Aug. 30, 2012)
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/DHS-Response-in-Opposition.pdf
EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program)
http://epic.org/redirect/081512-epicvdhs-scanners.html
=======================================================================
[2] Pew Survey: Most Mobile Users Avoid Apps on Privacy Grounds
=======================================================================
A new survey by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life
Project has found that many mobile device users have uninstalled or
avoided certain apps due to concerns about the apps' user privacy.
Specifically, 54% of mobile users have decided to not install an app
after discovering the amount of information it collected, and 30% of
mobile users uninstalled an app after discovering that it did not meet
their privacy standards.
Pew Research surveyed 2,254 adults between March 15 and April 3, 2012.
Eighty-eight percent of adults reported owning smartphones, and 43%
said that they download apps for their phones. A majority of
respondents (57%) either had avoided an app or uninstalled it due to
privacy concerns. Physical security was also an issue for respondents;
31% reported experiencing a lost or stolen phone, and 12% claimed that
others had violated their privacy by accessing their phone in an
unapproved manner. Finally, mobile device owners reported using a
variety of techniques to protect their data, including backing up
information, clearing browsing histories, or turning off location
tracking.
The Pew survey comes at a time when the privacy multistakeholder
process initiated by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration is centered on mobile app transparency. NTIA has hosted
three meetings but has yet to make progress on substantive issues. The
Obama Administration hopes the meetings will generate a "code of
conduct" that will result in app vendors' voluntary implementation of
the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, a list of recommended privacy
practices released by the White House in early 2012.
The Pew smartphone survey is the second poll this year that indicates
users are becoming more active in protecting the privacy of their
digital profiles. Compared to 2009, more users are deleting friends on
social media accounts, deleting comments made by others on their
profiles, and removing their names from tagged photos of themselves.
Pew: App Survey (Sept. 5, 2012)
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-pew-mobile-survey.html
Pew: Social Media Survey (Feb. 24, 2012)
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-pew-social-survey.html
The White House: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights (Feb. 2012)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf
The White House: Consumer Data Privacy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf
NTIA: Mobile App Transparency
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-NTIA-mobile-transparency.html
EPIC: Public Opinion on Privacy
http://epic.org/privacy/survey/
EPIC: iPhone Privacy
http://epic.org/privacy/location_privacy/apple.html
========================================================================
[3] EPIC Supreme Court Brief: Investigative Techniques Not 'Infallible'
========================================================================
EPIC has submitted a "friend of the court" brief in the US Supreme
Court case Florida v. Harris, which is scheduled for oral argument in
October. Florida v. Harris involves a physical search of a car after a
"sniff test" by a narcotics-detection dog. The Florida Supreme Court
held that in order to establish probable cause necessary to support the
vehicle's warrantless search, the government must provide some evidence
to indicate that the narcotics-detection dog was reliable.
Florida v. Harris follows a similar 2005 case, Illinois v. Caballes, in
which the Court ruled that a sniff by a trained dog does not constitute
a "search" under the Fourth Amendment if the sniff does not "reveal"
any non-contraband information.
EPIC's brief seeks to uphold the Florida Supreme Court decision in
favor of Harris. The brief argues that the government should bear the
burden of establishing the reliability of advanced investigative
techniques, including the use of electronic devices that attempt to
identify contraband materials, communications, or media. In so doing,
the EPIC brief points to a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report
that discussed the "forensic community's 'current fragmentation and
inconsistent practices,' including a lack of "'uniformity in
certification of forensic practitioners.'" Subsequent hearings in
the US Senate Judiciary Committee have further explored this problem.
EPIC's brief highlights the relationship between the drug-detection
dog in Harris and similar, potentially unreliable, electronic
investigative techniques, including remote terahertz scanners, whole-
body imaging devices, and the FBI's Carnivore electronic interception
software. The EPIC brief asks the Supreme Court to uphold the decision
in Harris in order to ensure that such techniques are not used to
support warrantless searches that reveal private information.
EPIC: "Friend of the Court" Brief in Florida v. Harris (Aug. 31, 2012)
http://epic.org/amicus/harris/EPIC-Amicus-Brief.pdf
EPIC: Florida v. Harris
http://epic.org/amicus/harris/
National Academies: Report on Forensic Science in the US (Aug. 2009)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf
US Senate: Hearing on Improving Forensic Science (Jul. 18, 2012)
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-senate-forensics-hearing.html
EPIC: Florida v. Jardines
http://epic.org/amicus/jardines/default.html
=======================================================================
[4] US Consumer Groups Endorse Proposed European Privacy Law
=======================================================================
In a recent letter to members of the European Parliament, EPIC and a
coalition of more than 20 other US consumer organizations expressed
support for the "General Data Protection Regulation," the new European
data protection law. The coalition's letter affirms that the law
"provides important new protections for the privacy and security of
consumers." The letter also states that the European effort will raise
privacy standards for consumers outside the EU. BEUC, the association
of European consumer groups, has also expressed support for the new law.
The General Data Protection Regulation is a comprehensive update of the
1995 EU Data Protection Directive and adopts innovative new approaches
to privacy protection, such as "Privacy by Design."
The Regulation improves consumer privacy and security by restoring
consumer control over personal data - for example, by strengthening
meaningful consent requirements, emphasizing data minimization and
transparency in data practices, and establishing stronger consumer
remedies and redress rights. The Regulation also recognizes "the
right to be forgotten," which encourages data controllers and
processors to erase consumer personal data upon request and abstain
from further disseminating the erased data.
The letter from the US consumer groups, including the Consumer
Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the US Public Interest
Research Group, argues that the new European Union privacy law
"provides important new protections for the privacy and security of
consumers." The letter also suggests recommendations to bolster the
Regulation, and recommends changes including "narrowing the scope of
general exceptions, strengthening the right to data portability,
promoting greater transparency in data practices (particularly
regarding the profiling and 'scoring' of consumers), restricting the
circumstances for 'blanket' consent, and including non-economic loss
in the context of data breach notification." The coalition further
lauds European data protection because, as the Transatlantic Consumer
Dialogue has noted previously, "it tends to be 'technologically
neutral, focusing on the collection and use of personal information and
not the specific technologies involved.'"
In 2009, EPIC joined 110 other civil society groups and 106 technical
and legal experts in endorsing the Madrid Privacy Declaration, which
calls for the establishment of "a new international framework for
privacy protection . . . based on the rule of law, respect for
fundamental human rights, and support for democratic institutions."
The Declaration also supports Convention 108 of the Council of Europe,
which itself seeks to "secure . . . respect for [individual] rights and
fundamental freedoms," particularly with respect to privacy.
EPIC et al.: Letter to EU re: Data Protection Law (Sept. 5, 2012)
http://epic.org/privacy/intl/US-Cons-Grps-Support-EU-Priv-Law.pdf
EU Commission: General Data Protection Regulation (Jan. 2012)
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-eu-data-regulation.html
EU Commission: 1995 EU Data Protection Directive
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-eu-1995-directive.html
BEUC: Data Protection Position Paper (Jul. 27, 2012)
http://epic.org/privacy/BEUC-Position-Paper.pdf
The Public Voice: Madrid Privacy Declaration (Nov. 2009)
http://www.thepublicvoice.org/madrid-declaration/
Council of Europe: Convention 108 (Aug. 2005)
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/108.htm
EPIC: EU Data Protection Directive
http://epic.org/privacy/intl/eu_data_protection_directive.html
========================================================================
[5] 2012 Party Platforms Address Privacy Rights
========================================================================
Both the US Democratic and Republican Parties have included privacy
rights in their 2012 party platforms, which were unveiled at their
respective party conventions in August and September.
The 2012 Democratic National Platform supports the Obama
Administration's Internet Privacy Bill of Rights, which was announced
in early 2012. Separate provisions in the platform call for privacy
protections for broadband deployment, intellectual property enforcement,
and cybersecurity laws. "As technology advances," the platform text
states, "we will continue to work with all stakeholders to protect the
security of the nation and its knowledge assets, U.S. intellectual
property, the functioning of fair and competitive markets, and the
privacy, free expression, and due process rights of Americans." The
Democratic platform opposes voter identification laws, which it
labels "political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens."
However, the platform is silent on the Fourth Amendment, and removed
the 2008 plank that opposed surveillance of individuals not suspected
of a crime.
The 2012 Republican National Platform calls for strong constitutional
protections for privacy and new safeguards for personal data held by
businesses. "We will ensure that personal data receives full
constitutional protection from government overreach and that
individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third
parties," the platform states. The platform criticizes TSA airport
screening procedures, "look[s] toward the development of security
systems that can replace the personal violation of frisking," and
calls for warrant requirements for most law-enforcement-operated
drones. However, other provisions endorse voter identification laws
and increased disclosure of personal information to the government in
the interest of cybersecurity.
Other national political parties also have released their official
platforms. The Libertarian Party platform includes a separate section
on "personal privacy" and asserts, "Only actions that infringe on the
rights of others can properly be termed crimes." The Green Party's
2012 platform states, "our civil liberties of privacy and free speech
are impaired by the excesses of the USA PATRIOT Act and kindred new
laws that use a national tragedy . . . as an excuse to impose
ubiquitous surveillance and control over citizens." The Constitution
Party supports "privacy legislation that prohibits private parties
from discriminating against individuals who refuse to disclose or
obtain a Social Security number."
Democratic Party: 2012 National Platform
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
Republican Party: 2012 National Platform
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
Libertarian Party: 2012 National Platform
http://www.lp.org/platform
US Green Party: 2012 National Platform
http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/Platform-2012.html
Constitution Party: 2012 National Platform
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
EPIC: Privacy and Consumer Profiling
http://epic.org/privacy/profiling/default.html
EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy
http://epic.org/privacy/voting/photo-identification.html
EPIC: National Security Letters
http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/
EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications.
http://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/
EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners
http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones
http://epic.org/privacy/drones/
========================================================================
[6] News in Brief
========================================================================
EPIC, Others Ask Supreme Court to Review Controversial State FOI Law
EPIC and several other leading open-government organizations have filed
a "friend of the court" brief in support of a petition for US Supreme
Court review of a case challenging the Virginia Freedom of Information
law, which allows only Virginia residents and news media representatives
to access state public records. The brief argues that Virginia's
"citizens-only" provision is constitutionally impermissible because it
unnecessarily burdens the rights of individuals and organizations
outside of Virginia. The case is of particular interest to EPIC; state
FOI laws are often necessary for oversight of new surveillance programs.
In 2008, after a successful FOIA lawsuit against the Commonwealth of
Virginia, EPIC obtained documents revealing an agreement to limit
oversight of a State Fusion Center.
EPIC et al.: Brief in McBurney & Hilbert v. VA (Aug. 2012)
http://epic.org/amicus/EPIC-McBurney-Amicus-Brief.pdf
Deepak Gupta et al.: Petition for US Supreme Court Hearing (June 2012)
http://guptabeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/McBurneyPetition.pdf
EPIC: FOIA Suit Against VA re: Fusion Centers (Mar. 2008)
http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/VA_FOIA_lawsuit_032108.pdf
EPIC: Documents on VA Fusion Center as Result of FOIA Suit (2008)
http://epic.org/privacy/virginia_fusion/MOU.pdf
EPIC: EPIC v. VA Dept. of State Police: Fusion Center Secrecy Bill
http://epic.org/privacy/virginia_fusion/
EPIC: FOIA Litigation Docket
http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/
Federal Appellate Court Strikes Down Texas Voter ID Law
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated a Texas law that would
require voters to present photo identification in order to vote.
Calling the law "the most stringent in the country," the court stated
that "record evidence suggests that [the law], if implemented, would
in fact have a retrogressive effect on Hispanic and African American
voters." Therefore, the court held, the law violates section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires "covered jurisdictions" to
show that new voting procedures, such as voter ID requirements, are
nondiscriminatory before they can be implemented. The court's ruling
follows the US Department of Justice's previous rejection of the law
through the Section 5 preclearance process. EPIC has argued that
unreasonable voter ID requirements are an impermissible burden on the
right to vote.
DC Circuit Court: Decision in Texas v. Holder (Aug. 30, 2012)
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-voter-id.pdf
US DOJ: Initial Rejection of Texas Voter ID Law (Mar. 12, 2012)
http://epic.org/privacy/voting/DOJ-Determination-TX-Voter-ID.pdf
US DOJ: 1965 Voting Rights Act
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php
EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy
http://epic.org/privacy/voting/photo-identification.html
EPIC: Voting Privacy
http://epic.org/privacy/voting/
EPIC: Voter Registration and Privacy
https://epic.org/privacy/voting/register/
EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County
https://epic.org/privacy/voting/crawford/
German Consumer Group Says Facebook App Center Violates Privacy
The Federation of German Consumer Organizations has alleged that
Facebook's App Center violates German law. According to the group's
complaint, the App Center does not provide a complete disclosure of
the purposes for which apps collect data, therefore not providing for
the "informed consent" required by law. The group says it would
consider legal action if Facebook did not correct the problem by
September 4. The allegations follow repeated requests by German data
protection officials that Facebook disable its facial recognition
software. In late 2011, the Federal Trade Commission finalized a
settlement with Facebook that follows from complaints filed by EPIC
and other consumer and privacy organizations in 2009 and 2010. The
settlement bars Facebook from changing privacy settings without the
affirmative consent of users, or misrepresenting the privacy or
security of users' personal information. In response to a dissenting
opinion by FTC Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, the FTC clarified that
"Facebook will be liable for conduct by apps that contradict Facebook's
promises about the privacy or security practices of these apps."
Fed. of German Consumer Groups: Complaint re: Facebook (Aug. 27, 2012)
http://www.vzbv.de/10146.htm
FTC: Final Settlement with Facebook re: EPIC Complaints (Nov. 29, 2011)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/111129facebookagree.pdf
FTC: Statement of the Commission re: Facebook Settlement (Aug. 10, 2012)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/120810facebookstmtcomm.pdf
EPIC: In re: Facebook Complaint (Dec. 17, 2009)
http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC-FacebookComplaint.pdf
EPIC: In re: Facebook 2 Complaint (May 5, 2010)
http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC_FTC_FB_Complaint.pdf
EPIC: Facebook Privacy
http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/
New Report Finds Few Protections For Pervasive Drone Surveillance
The Congressional Research Service has released a new report on "Drones
in Domestic Surveillance Operations." The report analyzes the current
state of the law for domestic aerial surveillance and the Fourth
Amendment, as well as recently introduced bills about drone
surveillance. In testimony before the US House Subcommittee on
Oversight, Investigations, and Management earlier this year, EPIC's
Amie Stepanovich noted, "there are substantial legal and constitutional
issues involved in the deployment of aerial drones by federal agencies
that need to be addressed." EPIC recommended that the FAA develop
privacy rules, that DHS conduct a privacy assessment, and that
Congress establish new privacy safeguards. In early 2012, EPIC, joined
by over 100 organizations, experts, and members of the public,
petitioned the FAA to begin a rulemaking on the privacy impact of drone
use.
Congressional Research Service: Report on Drones (Sept. 6, 2012)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42701.pdf
EPIC: Testimony Before US House on Drones
http://epic.org/privacy/testimony/EPIC-Drone-Testimony-7-12.pdf
EPIC et al.: Petition to FAA on Drones (Mar. 8, 2012)
http://epic.org/privacy/drones/FAA-553e-Petition-03-08-12.pdf
EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones
http://epic.org/privacy/drones/
CPDP 2013 Calls for Papers in Advance of January Conference
The 6th Annual Computers, Privacy and Data Protection Conference has
announced a Call for Papers. The conference will take place January
23-25, 2013, in Brussels. Both experienced and junior researchers, as
well as Ph.D. candidates, are invited to submit work. The theme of the
2013 CPDP conference is "Reloading Data Protection." Organizers are
particularly interested in papers focusing on technology's relationship
to privacy, data protection, non-discrimination and surveillance.
Deadline for submissions is October 19, 2012. EPIC is a participant in
CPDP conferences and presents the "EPIC International Champion of
Freedom Awards" at CPDP.
CPDP: 2013 Conference
www.cpdpconferences.org
CPDP 2013: Call for Papers
http://www.cpdpconferences.org/callforpapers.html#top
CPDP 2013: Paper Submission Guidelines
https://www.easychair.org/account/signin.cgi?conf=cpdp2013
EPIC: 2012 International Champion of Freedom Awards
http://epic.org/2012/01/epic-gives-2012-privacy-champi.html
EPIC: Press Release on Intl. Champion of Freedom Awards (Jan. 26, 2012)
http://epic.org/press/Stoddart-Release-EPIC-Award.pdf
EPIC: EU Law
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-epic-eu-law.html
=======================================================================
[7] EPIC in the News
=======================================================================
"Myspace Settles Privacy Complaint -- Terms Less Restrictive Than
Facebook's." MediaPost, Sept. 11, 2012.
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-mediapost-myspace-epic.html
"Privacy Group Pushes TSA to Start Review of Airport Screening
Program." Legal Times, Sept. 11, 2012.
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-legaltimes-epic-tsa.html
"Tracking School Children With RFID Tags? It’s All About the Benjamins."
Wired, Sept. 7, 2012.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/rfid-chip-student-monitoring/
"Drone use expands to TV stations, undermines public safety, privacy."
Examiner.com, Sept. 5, 2012.
http://epic.org/redirect/091312/examiner-epic-drones.html
"Smartphone Owners Clear Search History, Shed Apps, To Protect Privacy."
MediaPost, Sept. 5, 2012.
http://epic.org/redirect/091312/mediapost-epic-smartphones.html
"U.S. Groups Urge EU to Resist Weakening Privacy Proposal." National
Journal, Sept. 5, 2012.
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-natjournal-epic-eu.html
"TSA Denies Stonewalling Nude Body-Scanner Court Order." Wired, Aug.
30, 2012.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/tsa-no-scanner-stonewalling/
"Republicans call for reduced regulation online, more data protection."
Ars Technica, Aug. 29, 2012.
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-gop-epic-privacy.html
For More EPIC in the News:
http://epic.org/news/epic_in_news.html
=======================================================================
[8] Book Review: 'Power and Constraint'
=======================================================================
"Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency after 9/11,"
Jack Goldsmith
http://epic.org/redirect/091312-power-and-constraint-goldsmith.html
Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith's new book, "Power and
Constraint: The Accountable Presidency after 9/11," attempts to survey
and analyze the extent of presidential power in the national security
realm. In particular, Goldsmith looks at the evolution of transparency,
legalization, and accountability in the George W. Bush Administration's
second term and Obama Administration's first term. Goldsmith argues
that the complex interactions of institutions and agents, both in and
out of government, have created a de facto system of checks and
balances on executive power - what he calls "the presidential
synopticon."
Unfortunately, "Power and Constraint" is largely a nominal walkthrough
of today's national security landscape: heavy on facts and data, but
vague on satisfying answers. After discussing pervasive government
leaks, overuse of secrecy, and increasing reliance on lawyers,
Goldsmith draws no conclusions about whether this new system of
accountability is better or worse than in previous eras.
"Power and Constraint" begins by noting that President Obama has
retained many of the controversial national security and surveillance
programs initiated under President Bush, and in some cases has broken
new ground, like the expansion of targeted drone killings. But the
presidential synopticon has developed in parallel, driven by factors
like "accountability journalism," government leaks due to new
technologies, increasing internal oversight in the form of investigators
general, the "lawyering up" of the military at all stages of decision-
making, and the Supreme Court Guantanamo Bay lawsuits. Goldsmith argues
that these factors lead the President, the CIA, and the military to
focus not only on existing laws but also on the "CNN factor"; i.e.,
What will the public's reaction be when a certain program is leaked?
As a result, according to Goldsmith, the synopticon exerts substantial
influence over national security policy even in a period of
unprecedented executive power.
Those who prioritize civil liberties and oppose many Bush-era national
security programs will be dissatisfied with the book's lack of hard
conclusions. Goldsmith's equivocations are disappointing: President
Obama has continued pretty much all of President Bush's questionable
national security policies = Bad. But now the CIA has inspectors
general and General Petraeus never leaves home without his personal
lawyer= Good. To his credit, however, Goldsmith does touch on how the
US wound up with this patchwork of oversight. In his view, because
Congress gave the President almost carte blanche after 9/11 in the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution, the
legislative branch lost "legal control on the initiation of military
force."
According to Goldsmith, we now have more executive transparency thanks
to the efforts of journalists, but journalists are not accountable to
the public. We now have lawyers ensuring the legality of every military
program, but they compound the bureaucracy. We now have more
accountability because our secrets leak out, but without secrecy we
hamstring our intelligence services. The presidential synopticon is
an uneven, inefficient, and cumbersome beast. Meanwhile, Congress and
the Supreme Court have abdicated their responsibility to create a more
comprehensive system.
"It might seem that we should just get the balance of presidential
authorities and presidential accountability right in the first place,
before the next attack arrives, in order to prevent it," Goldsmith
writes. "But we are prisoners of information uncertainty and
psychological biases, and government is an imperfect science."
Unfortunately, in this case Goldsmith is correct.
-- David Brody
================================
EPIC Publications:
"Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws 2010," edited by
Harry A. Hammitt, Marc Rotenberg, John A. Verdi, Ginger McCall, and Mark
S. Zaid (EPIC 2010). Price: $75
http://epic.org/bookstore/foia2010/
Litigation Under the Federal Open Government Laws is the most
comprehensive, authoritative discussion of the federal open access laws.
This updated version includes new material regarding President Obama's
2009 memo on Open Government, Attorney General Holder's March 2009 memo
on FOIA Guidance, and the new executive order on declassification. The
standard reference work includes in-depth analysis of litigation under:
the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. The fully updated
2010 volume is the 25th edition of the manual that lawyers, journalists
and researchers have relied on for more than 25 years.
================================
"Information Privacy Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition" Daniel
J. Solove, Marc Rotenberg, and Paul Schwartz. (Aspen 2005). Price: $98.
http://www.epic.org/redirect/aspen_ipl_casebook.html
This clear, comprehensive introduction to the field of information
privacy law allows instructors to enliven their teaching of fundamental
concepts by addressing both enduring and emerging controversies. The
Second Edition addresses numerous rapidly developing areas of privacy
law, including: identity theft, government data mining and electronic
surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
intelligence sharing, RFID tags, GPS, spyware, web bugs, and more.
Information Privacy Law, Second Edition, builds a cohesive foundation
for an exciting course in this rapidly evolving area of law.
================================
"Privacy & Human Rights 2006: An International Survey of Privacy Laws
and Developments" (EPIC 2007). Price: $75.
http://www.epic.org/phr06/
This annual report by EPIC and Privacy International provides an
overview of key privacy topics and reviews the state of privacy in over
75 countries around the world. The report outlines legal protections,
new challenges, and important issues and events relating to privacy.
Privacy & Human Rights 2006 is the most comprehensive report on privacy
and data protection ever published.
================================
"The Public Voice WSIS Sourcebook: Perspectives on the World Summit on
the Information Society" (EPIC 2004). Price: $40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pvsourcebook
This resource promotes a dialogue on the issues, the outcomes, and the
process of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This
reference guide provides the official UN documents, regional and
issue-oriented perspectives, and recommendations and proposals for
future action, as well as a useful list of resources and contacts for
individuals and organizations that wish to become more involved in the
WSIS process.
================================
"The Privacy Law Sourcebook 2004: United States Law, International Law,
and Recent Developments," Marc Rotenberg, editor (EPIC 2005). Price:
$40.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/pls2004/
The Privacy Law Sourcebook, which has been called the "Physician's Desk
Reference" of the privacy world, is the leading resource for students,
attorneys, researchers, and journalists interested in pursuing privacy
law in the United States and around the world. It includes the full
texts of major privacy laws and directives such as the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the Privacy Act, and the OECD Privacy Guidelines, as
well as an up-to-date section on recent developments. New materials
include the APEC Privacy Framework, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act,
and the CAN-SPAM Act.
================================
"Filters and Freedom 2.0: Free Speech Perspectives on Internet Content
Controls" (EPIC 2001). Price: $20.
http://www.epic.org/bookstore/filters2.0
A collection of essays, studies, and critiques of Internet content
filtering. These papers are instrumental in explaining why filtering
threatens free expression.
================================
EPIC publications and other books on privacy, open government, free
expression, and constitutional values can be ordered at:
EPIC Bookstore
http://www.epic.org/bookstore
================================
EPIC also publishes EPIC FOIA Notes, which provides brief summaries of
interesting documents obtained from government agencies under the
Freedom of Information Act.
Subscribe to EPIC FOIA Notes at:
http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/foia_notes
=======================================================================
[9] Upcoming Conferences and Events
=======================================================================
Cato Institute's 11th Annual Constitution Day Conference, 18 September
2012, Washington, DC. For More Information:
http://www.cato.org/events/ccs2012/index.html.
Symposium on Freedom of Scientific Information, Presented by the Union
of Concerned Scientists for Science and Democracy, 25 September 2012,
Washington, DC. For More Information: Contact Ashlie Hampton at
ahampton@fac.org.
3rd Annual Privacy, ATI and Security Congress. 4-5 October 2012,
Ottawa, ON. For More Information: http://www.rebootconference.com/
events/information-privacy-security-congress-2012/.
Amsterdam Privacy Conference. 7-10 October 2012, Amsterdam. For More
Information: http://www.ivir.nl/news/CallforPapersAPC2012.pdf.
34th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy. 23-25
October 2012, Punta del Este, Uruguay. For more information:
http://www.privacyconference2012.org/english/sobre-la-conferencia/
noticias/noticia-destacada.
The Public Voice Conference. 22 October 2012, Punta del Este, Uruguay.
For more information: http://www.thepublicvoice.org/.
PIPA Conference 2012: "Privacy on the Go." 1-2 November 2012, Calgary,
Alberta. For More Information: http://privacyconference2012.ca.
"Computers, Privacy and Data Protection: Reloading Data Protection."
23-25 January 2013, Brussels. For More information:
http://www.cpdpconferences.org/.
=======================================================================
Join EPIC on Facebook and Twitter
=======================================================================
Join the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Facebook and Twitter:
http://facebook.com/epicprivacyhttp://epic.org/facebookhttp://twitter.com/epicprivacy
Join us on Twitter for #privchat, Tuesdays, 11:00am ET.
Start a discussion on privacy. Let us know your thoughts.
Stay up to date with EPIC's events.
Support EPIC.
=======================================================================
Privacy Policy
=======================================================================
The EPIC Alert mailing list is used only to mail the EPIC Alert and to
send notices about EPIC activities. We do not sell, rent or share our
mailing list. We also intend to challenge any subpoena or other legal
process seeking access to our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to
other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.
In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address
from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription
information."
=======================================================================
About EPIC
=======================================================================
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research
center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public
attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the
Digital Telephony proposal, national ID cards, medical record privacy,
and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC publishes the
EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts
policy research. For more information, see http://www.epic.org or write
EPIC, 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. +1 202
483 1140 (tel), +1 202 483 1248 (fax).
=======================================================================
Donate to EPIC
=======================================================================
If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks
should be made out to "EPIC" and sent to 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW,
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009. Or you can contribute online at:
http://www.epic.org/donate
Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and
First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right
of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption and
expanding wiretapping powers.
Thank you for your support.
=======================================================================
Subscription Information
=======================================================================
Subscribe/unsubscribe via web interface:
http://mailman.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/epic_news
Back issues are available at:
http://www.epic.org/alert
The EPIC Alert displays best in a fixed-width font, such as Courier.
------------------------- END EPIC Alert 19.17 ------------------------